I couldn't understand why I got this wrong until I started writing this, so I figured I'd publish just in case it helps others.

Decrease in revenues > Prices risen beyond what people can afford > Salaries not kept pace.

Contrapositive: Salaries kept pace > Prices do not rise beyond level people can afford > No decrease in revenue

Question: If salaries have kept pace during last year, what MBT?

(B) Incorrect: Retail stores will not experience a drop in retail sales this holiday season

(C) Correct: Prices in retail stores have not risen beyond the level that most people can afford during this holiday season.

I'm really struggling with RC. My highest pt has been a 157, I average around -6 to -8 on LR but -8 to -14 on RC. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong since I follow the strategies outlined in the core curriculum. Even when I try to slow down and only attempt 3 passages in a section, my accuracy is still bad. Any advice would be appreciated since I'm taking the November lsat (aiming for at least a 160)!

Hello all,

I was reviewing PT 77 S2 Q18 (link below) and was having a bit of trouble clarifying my thinking on it.

If an argument "fails to exclude" X, that means it does not explicitly rule out X, correct? This is different than "presumes" or "takes for granted" X where X would be an assumption the argument makes, right?

Am I thinking about this correctly?

Thanks for any help!

Link:

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-2-question-18/

loophole teaches us to solve wordy parallel questions by running the numbers (principle & parallel question chapter). How can I apply this method during the actual exam and study period?

I'm reviewing RRE LR questions. I came across PrepTest February 1997 Section 1 Question 23 (the one about the professor's travel plans) in a drill. Even after blind review, I got it wrong. I know the right answer, but I don't know why it's right or why the other ones are wrong. Can someone explain it to me? I'm not sure where to even start with this one.

Admin note: Edited title. Please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of question]"

On this question I initially answered correctly, but then during BR changed to the wrong answer. I am beginning to understand why C is correct, but I still feel like I am not even 100% sure what the stimulus itself is actually saying.

Here is the stimulus:

The energy an animal must expend to move uphill is proportional to its body weight, whereas the animal's energy output available to perform this task is proportional to its surface area. This is the reason that small animals, such as squirrels, can run up a tree trunk almost as fast as they can move on level ground, whereas large animals tend to slow down when they are moving uphill.

What's throwing me off is that I don't understand how "energy output available to perform this task" differs from "energy an animal must expend." I was also a little confused by the jump from talking about energy to speed (saying that this is why squirrels can run up a trunk at the same speed)- am I meant to interpret that as saying that it uses the same amount of energy? If so, is that in relation to energy output available or the amount that must be expended and how would I know that?

Thanks for any help in advance!

are old reading comp passages as useful for studying? i feel like the older passages use less clear language than the ones from more recent years.

So I got my score and ultimately got a 157. I'm bummed but...what can you do? I bought the 7sage starter and will be playing catch up on studying today. Does anyone have any tips? I have a goal of high 160's.

Hello 7sage admin,

Could you guys put a target time on the RC passages? In the LGs, the target time is helpful, and I think that a target time for the RC passages would be super helpful, especially since the timing in RC feels much more unpredictable than the other sections. Obviously, everyone's going to be a little different based on background etc, but a ballpark figure would be awesome. Really loving the curriculum, keep up the good work!

I'm still not clear on the contrapositive since there can never be a scenario where there is no table, according to the rules (Irene buys 4 items), whether the footstool or vanity is in or out. If this contrapositive is a true expression, is it not indicating that there IS a scenario where there is no table AND no footstool? Am I thinking about it wrong?

Contrapositives have always made sense and worked for me in many other questions, except this one. This is why I tried including a conjunction with the X (wood), because I was trying to figure out how to keep the existence of a table apart and separate from the existence of a table made from a particular wood (almost as if it were a 6th furniture option), but couldn't figure it out. I truly hope my question makes sense.

I thought this question was rather difficult but there is no explanation video, so just dropping my thought process/notes here. Please feel free to share yours!

P says ok eventually all mental stuffs can be explained in neurological terms

Explain mental stuffs in neuro terms -> knowledge (neurons and function, interaction, delineation of psycho faculties).

A. It supports the physicalist actually by trying to prove they are right.

B. It does describe

C. Not really, it didn’t use the 2 interchangeably

D. Why do we care about the purpose of this

E. Hmh that’s true, it talks about knowledge (which there are 3 but it only touches on 2).

I am very confused about this question and why E is the correct answer. i did not notice anything in the stimulus that alluded to the mussels retaining that hazardous waste. thanks in advance to anyone who can explain!

It really seems like the answer should be (D), can someone explain to me how (B) could possibly be read as consistent with the biologist's claim. It is the exact opposite of what they are claiming????

Admin note: For the community to better assist you, please include PrepTest number, section number and question number in the following format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

How is D correct?????

So I've been at the LSAT for over a year now. I've struggled and plateaued. I've wanted to give up, I've felt motivated and defeated. The September test is right around the corner so I wanted to prove something to myself. I sat down and took my original diagnostic test again. I took this test in May of 2016. It's been over a year since I touched this material.

PT 63

May 2016 score: 151

September 2017 score: 174

While I know there are some factors here, like memory, the feeling of seeing pure progress is amazing.

If you want a confidence boost before the September test, and you are okay with retaking a test, I say give this a shot. It really helped me see that some of my work is at least paying off haha. Just a thought for my fellow September testers out there!

Hello,

I'm confused on how to approach this weakening question. My understanding of the auto industry executive's argument:

The auto industry executive is rejecting the recent guidelines that are requiring the production of cars with higher fuel efficiency (C) because statistics show that cars after 1977 that were built smaller to be more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident related fatalities (P). As I understand it, the executive is making a poor correlation-causation argument between building cars smaller and the assumed increase of fatal accidents. I'm having trouble with how the AC's best weaken the argument.

I initially chose D, and was struggling to find a better AC during BR. I eliminated E and B right off that bat. That left A C D. I chose D because I thought if modern technology could make cars more fuel efficient WITHOUT having to alter the size of the car (the executive is linking smaller fuel efficient cars and fatalities), then it might weaken the argument. You eliminate the need for change in size, you eliminate one potential connection with accidents.

I'm struggling to see how AC C is correct. I noticed the change between big and small and left that AC at first. Can someone help explain how that is the correct AC. From my understanding, if large cars can have a better fuel efficiency from new technology based off recent guidelines, does that weaken the executive's argument that the guidelines would have to adopt previous standards that they (incorrectly?) linked with accidents and fatalities?

Tough. Choice (E) is correct.

You can tell by using the

contrapositive on both of these statements:

If not (prices fall as rapidly as/more rapidly than

competitors),

then not (production costs fall as rapidly or more rapidly).

if NOT (production costs fall AS rapidly), then NOT (not slower to adopt new tech)

= as fast as competitors to adopt new technology.

I really don't like any of these answer choice, but I was pretty confident when I eliminated D. Can someone explain how D resolves the paradox? In my mind, it makes it weirder.

Right after the war, the area that had been subject to oil fires and oil spills had less contamination than prewar surveys indicated. The surveys also indicated that PAHs were low compared to those in more temperate oil producing areas.

What I am looking for: If the land had been contaminated with all of this bad stuff during the war, then how was their less contamination after the war than before? Maybe the survey was wrong? Maybe some people cleaned up the land?

Answer A: Who cares about the effects. We want to know how there was more contamination.

Answer B: I think this makes the paradox weirder. Shouldn't there have been more PAH compared to that in temperate regions?

Answer C: This is what I chose, but I didn't like it all that much. Even if this is true, this explains why PAHs were low compared to temperate regions, but it doesn't explain anything about before the war levels and after the war levels. What if after the war levels of PAH were higher than before the war, but after the war levels were still lower than the Baltic Sea regions? It fits the facts and makes the paradox weirder.

Answer D: I felt 110% confident eliminating this one, and I can't figure out how this does anything but make the paradox weirder/do nothing. If peacetime oil production results in high levels of PAH and oil dumping, then this could mean two things: 1.) this answer choice is talking about the period of time after the war (which definitely does not help the paradox since we want to know why all of this bad stuff was lower than before the war) or 2.) this is talking about before the war. But if this latter case is what this answer choice is talking about, then wouldn't we need to have the relative contamination effects of oil dumping, oil fires, and oil spills? So yes, during the war, oil production declined (line 4), but a ton of bad contaminating things still happened. How is it OK to assume that the contaminating things in answer choice D (prior to the war) had a greater effect than the stuff that happened during the war? What if they actually had a lesser effect on the environment than the fires and spills during the war? This is a plausible occurrence, consistent with the facts in the passage and facts in the answer choice; this would make the paradox weirder, right? I used this same type of reasoning (coming up with a scenario consistent with the facts) to eliminate C.

Answer E: OK, but why was the contamination less after the war? Wouldn't this imply that the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been, but there was still an increase in damage?

I'm writing in September and was struggling to get PT scores that I was happy with. I was consistently getting in the mid 160's on my PT's but my BR would always be above 170. I was missing most of my points from LR and RC. I skipped PT 50-59 so I could use the LR drills and they made the world of difference. On top of drilling at least one LG section every day of the week, I've been doing 4-6 LR drills a week on days that I don't take PT's (I do 3 PT's a week). Now I'm getting in the 170's. To other people in the same boat, I would say focus on keeping your LG above -2 and try to scoop as many of the LR points up as you can. I usually go -3 to -8 in RC, so I'm still trying to stabilize that and get it down by a few points, but by far the easiest points to rake up are the LG and LR.

Another big thing for me is the mental game. I've picked up guided meditation every morning using the app Headspace and regularly practice breathing and body awareness exercises throughout the day. They help me block distracting thoughts and focus on the task at hand. Taking 30 second breathing breaks during a section is really helpful for me if I start to feel overwhelmed/rushed. Before I write a PT, I sit at my desk and do nothing from 8:30-9 (check in for me is 8:30 and reports of my test center say the test doesn't usually start until at least half an hour after that). During that time I try to make myself feel as anxious/nervous as possible, and then spend the last 10 minutes mediating it away. Picking up a habit before writing the tests can be a really good thing. Something that you can do before writing each PT to get you in the right mood. I do the meditation thing. A good friend of mine who got into the 170's last year would go for a walk around the block every time before writing. Just a quick thing you can do to remind your brain that an LSAT is coming up and it's time to get serious. Almost like Pavlovian training for your head.

Anyway, hope that helps! Keep grinding and putting in the time. Anyone can succeed.

Is there a specific reason why pt1-16 LR questions don’t have explanation videos? I was drilling these earlier pts but not having the videos to explain the passage makes understanding my mistake a little difficult.

why was it marked D instead of C? i feel like C is the correct choice because it matches the argument.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I missed this one during the timed exam, and I didn't change it during BR since I didn't see how A fully explained the facts.

Over the past five years, the number of car thefts has decreased while the likelihood of someone being convicted of stealing a car has increased.

What I am looking for: What if the technology to catch someone has increased so much that people are deterred from stealing a car and those that do get caught easily/have a lot of evidence against them? What if all of the "good" car thieves have been caught, and just a few really bad/easy to catch car thieves try to steal cars?

Answer A: The first part definitely explains the fact that the number of thefts have decreased: there are fewer thieves. I don't really see how the second part has anything to do with the conviction rate, though. So what if they abandon the car later? What does that have to do with conviction? Not sure about the LSAT's logic with this one...

Answer B: I picked this originally, but when I read it during BR, I really didn't like it all that much. Since I still didn't like A, I kept this during BR. The car alarm idea might explain the lack of car thefts superficially, but if people ignore them, why are there fewer thefts? The thieves probably wouldn't be dissuaded.

Answer C: This might make the situation weirder. If police resources are not used on car thefts, then how has the conviction rate increased? Wouldn't thieves try to steal more cars often if the police don't spend their time on such crimes?

Answer D: This also makes the situation weirder. This suggests that stealing cars is very profitable, so why would there be a decrease in the number of thefts?

Answer E: It's hard to see how there being more young car thieves helps explain the idea that car thefts have decreased in frequency. Also, the fact that they are given short sentences suggests that they will come right out and steal cars again.

Question Stem: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus: Shoe factory employs more unskilled full time workers (W) than all other businesses in town combined.

If shoe factory closes, more than half of town RESIDENTS who are W will lose jobs.

See the shift between the W that are employed at the factory in the premise, and RESIDENTS in the conclusion? Look for an idea connecting these 2 ideas: workers at the factory and residency.

A. residency, no workers

B. workers, no residency

C. workers, no residency

D. everyone employed at the factory is a resident.

E. neither

D works because without it, we have no idea where the workers come from - what if they all live OUTSIDE Centerville? Then there is no way the conclusion is true. So D closes this one gap.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I have been doing LR drills with specific question type tags in the obsolete format to make sure I won't use up questions from Current Format prep tests that I will end up taking. (I want scores/analytics for prep tests to be as accurate as possible). Is this an okay way to study and improve? Or do the LR questions differ from obsolete to current format so drastically, that I am actually hurting myself by practicing in this format? #help

For this question, I initially chose answer choice E because the background information really swept me up. My intuition told me that because the passage wrote about all of these other linguistic influences, the answer choice probably had something to do with that. However, upon BR, I ended up going with the correct answer choice A because the first sentence in the passage notes that the nature of English literature reflects... the English language. Thus it follows that the "origin of English," referring to the language, played a role in shaping English literature.